State spending €3million on communion rituals

sponsoredwalk · 11-02-2012 5:37pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Right, so we should give people money for communion day so the child doesn't develop mental health issues? Got it.

It's unsurprising that you completely ignore my point. I'm not bothering
with any more arguments if you're going to completely dishonestly
ignore everything I say & respond with something this petty... How
does your argument at all address my point about mothers whoring
themselves out? How at all does your response even bother addressing
the point I made about parents spending grocery money on this? Not a
care in the world for these issues, what do you care about the thoughts
of parents who have declared to all in their social radius that they are
in fact too poor to buy a simple dress or go out for a meal etc... What
do you care about those people who fcuking care about what others
think of them, who care to make sure others don't see their financial
state & cast pity on them, or judge them etc... who up until this fcuking
communion had been doing fine in that regard only to be forced into a
situation where they have to announce they are poor to their society,
have to tell their child they can't have a day like everyone else etc...
I know it doesn't fit your worldview but this is how people think, people
not like us ubermensch I know but that doesn't discount the fact that
this is reality. Of course though none of this matters because three
people on your side of the argument turned out fine :rolleyes:

MagicMarker wrote: »

Also, no matter where I look I see people showing outrage that such an allowance even exists, shouldn't the the allowance be cut altogether? You know, democracy 101?

Two things with this:

1) Are you really asking me whether the allowance should be cut
altogether because your subjective experience tells you that everybody
is against this? Seriously??

2) Of course you can call for this allowance to be cut, in fact I don't
think I've said you couldn't. However trying to hide behind arguments
that don't stand up to scrutiny is charlatanism at it's finest. It just so
happens the logic espoused in this thread thus far is so ridiculous &
pettily subjective that it's scary how almost nobody cares to point this
out. I find it fcuking horrendous that such bad logic could be so easily
accepted as a means to take money away from people in such a
realistic situation. Half the posts attack the irrelevant religious aspects,
others attack the parents, others use their own biases to argue the
parents shouldn't be so greedy & stupid, yet every post blithely ignores
the fact that people, in a democracy, want this & that it does something
good for people who are forced to enter into some ridiculous social
event forced upon them (remember this isn't a choice).
If you want to practice democracy 101 in fighting to take money away
from poor people just be honest about it & don't try to claim some logic
is on your side & most of all don't try to ignore the awful consequences
of your arguments. You are just going to bash poor people, that's it.

MagicMarker · 11-02-2012 5:58pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's unsurprising that you completely ignore my point. I'm not bothering
with any more arguments if you're going to completely dishonestly
ignore everything I say & respond with something this petty... How
does your argument at all address my point about mothers whoring
themselves out? How at all does your response even bother addressing
the point I made about parents spending grocery money on this? Not a
care in the world for these issues, what do you care about the thoughts
of parents who have declared to all in their social radius that they are
in fact too poor to buy a simple dress or go out for a meal etc... What
do you care about those people who fcuking care about what others
think of them, who care to make sure others don't see their financial
state & cast pity on them, or judge them etc... who up until this fcuking
communion had been doing fine in that regard only to be forced into a
situation where they have to announce they are poor to their society,
have to tell their child they can't have a day like everyone else etc...
I know it doesn't fit your worldview but this is how people think, people
not like us ubermensch I know but that doesn't discount the fact that
this is reality. Of course though none of this matters because three
people on your side of the argument turned out fine :rolleyes:

1. So we should spend 3 million in handouts per year because a few women are so concerned by what others think of them that they'd have sex for money? No, sorry, don't think so.

2. Taking food off your child's table to put them in a dress for a communion? We should give people handouts because they have their priorities arseways? Sorry, if a parent would rather their child starve so they can look pretty then that's something for child protection services to address.

There are problems to be addressed here but throwing money at parents isn't going to fix them.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Two things with this:

1) Are you really asking me whether the allowance should be cut
altogether because your subjective experience tells you that everybody
is against this? Seriously??

2) Of course you can call for this allowance to be cut, in fact I don't
think I've said you couldn't. However trying to hide behind arguments
that don't stand up to scrutiny is charlatanism at it's finest. It just so
happens the logic espoused in this thread thus far is so ridiculous &
pettily subjective that it's scary how almost nobody cares to point this
out. I find it fcuking horrendous that such bad logic could be so easily
accepted as a means to take money away from people in such a
realistic situation. Half the posts attack the irrelevant religious aspects,
others attack the parents, others use their own biases to argue the
parents shouldn't be so greedy & stupid, yet every post blithely ignores
the fact that people, in a democracy, want this & that it does something
good for people who are forced to enter into some ridiculous social
event forced upon them (remember this isn't a choice).
If you want to practice democracy 101 in fighting to take money away
from poor people just be honest about it & don't try to claim some logic
is on your side & most of all don't try to ignore the awful consequences
of your arguments. You are just going to bash poor people, that's it.

1. They aren't my subjective experiences, there's very clear outrage everywhere I look about this allowance. Of course there are some who agree with it, but most people seem to be against it. Just have a read of every thread on boards about it, google it, it's pretty clear what people think about this allowance.

2. Bad logic is giving people an ''exceptional needs payment'' for a day out that has optional dress, and is known about 7 years in advance. There is nothing exceptional about it, and it's a slap in the face to the people who really do need the money.

sponsoredwalk · 11-02-2012 6:34pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

1. So we should spend 3 million in handouts per year because a few women are so concerned by what others think of them that they'd have sex for money? No, sorry, don't think so.

Wait a minute, is that my argument? Really??

MagicMarker wrote: »

2. Taking food off your child's table to put them in a dress for a communion? We should give people handouts because they have their priorities arseways? Sorry, if a parent would rather their child starve so they can look pretty then that's something for child protection services to address.

I very much doubt a parent going through that much pain for their
child would not feed their own kids, I'm pretty sure you can see that
there are other ways than not feeding their kid that grocery money
can be taken away.

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are problems to be addressed here but throwing money at parents isn't going to fix them.

Apparently it does in this case, which is why people had it put in place
in the first place.

MagicMarker wrote: »

1. They aren't my subjective experiences, there's very clear outrage everywhere I look about this allowance. Of course there are some who agree with it, but most people seem to be against it. Just have a read of every thread on boards about it, google it, it's pretty clear what people think about this allowance.

Yes I've read the arguments but as I've said most are predicated on
ridiculous assumptions about religion & stupidity by way of projection
of your own personal values onto others, other claims about us not
being able to afford it are rich considering we have it budgeted.

MagicMarker wrote: »

2. Bad logic is giving people an ''exceptional needs payment'' for a day out that has optional dress, and is known about 7 years in advance. There is nothing exceptional about it, and it's a slap in the face to the people who really do need the money.

Do we really need to go into how flawed this 7 year argument of
yours is? I am just shocked such heartlessness is taken seriously.
Also, parents being forced into something culturally that they can't
economically afford seems to me to be the very definition of an
exceptional need, since they otherwise wouldn't have to deal with this
nonsense if they had a choice in the matter.

MagicMarker · 11-02-2012 6:40pm

How are parents being forced to do anything?

Communion? Optional.

200 euro dress? Optional.

Yep, sorry, not seeing anyone being forced here.

sponsoredwalk · 11-02-2012 6:52pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

How are parents being forced to do anything?

Communion? Optional.

200 euro dress? Optional.

Yep, sorry, not seeing anyone being forced here.

Okay...

sephir0th · 11-02-2012 7:09pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Not a
care in the world for these issues, what do you care about the thoughts
of parents who have declared to all in their social radius that they are
in fact too poor to buy a simple dress or go out for a meal etc... What
do you care about those people who fcuking care about what others
think of them, who care to make sure others don't see their financial
state & cast pity on them, or judge them etc... who up until this fcuking
communion had been doing fine in that regard only to be forced into a
situation where they have to announce they are poor to their society,
have to tell their child they can't have a day like everyone else etc...
.

A lot of kids like to go out to cinema, play sports, etc. all of which cost money. Do you think we should have welfare payouts for every situation in which the child's 'social status' may be impacted?

sponsoredwalk · 11-02-2012 7:24pm

sephir0th wrote: »

A lot of kids like to go out to cinema, play sports, etc. all of which cost money. Do you think we should have welfare payouts for every situation in which the child's 'social status' may be impacted?

We do, do you know what child benefit & similar related schemes are for?

MrPudding · 11-02-2012 7:28pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's unsurprising that you completely ignore my point. I'm not bothering
with any more arguments if you're going to completely dishonestly
ignore everything I say & respond with something this petty... How
does your argument at all address my point about mothers whoring
themselves out? How at all does your response even bother addressing
the point I made about parents spending grocery money on this? Not a
care in the world for these issues, what do you care about the thoughts
of parents who have declared to all in their social radius that they are
in fact too poor to buy a simple dress or go out for a meal etc... What
do you care about those people who fcuking care about what others
think of them, who care to make sure others don't see their financial
state & cast pity on them, or judge them etc... who up until this fcuking
communion had been doing fine in that regard only to be forced into a
situation where they have to announce they are poor to their society,
have to tell their child they can't have a day like everyone else etc...
I know it doesn't fit your worldview but this is how people think, people
not like us ubermensch I know but that doesn't discount the fact that
this is reality. Of course though none of this matters because three
people on your side of the argument turned out fine :rolleyes:

Two things with this:

1) Are you really asking me whether the allowance should be cut
altogether because your subjective experience tells you that everybody
is against this? Seriously??

2) Of course you can call for this allowance to be cut, in fact I don't
think I've said you couldn't. However trying to hide behind arguments
that don't stand up to scrutiny is charlatanism at it's finest. It just so
happens the logic espoused in this thread thus far is so ridiculous &
pettily subjective that it's scary how almost nobody cares to point this
out. I find it fcuking horrendous that such bad logic could be so easily
accepted as a means to take money away from people in such a
realistic situation. Half the posts attack the irrelevant religious aspects,
others attack the parents, others use their own biases to argue the
parents shouldn't be so greedy & stupid, yet every post blithely ignores
the fact that people, in a democracy, want this & that it does something
good for people who are forced to enter into some ridiculous social
event forced upon them (remember this isn't a choice).
If you want to practice democracy 101 in fighting to take money away
from poor people just be honest about it & don't try to claim some logic
is on your side & most of all don't try to ignore the awful consequences
of your arguments. You are just going to bash poor people, that's it.

I know it has been asked before, but why do your posts come out in this odd format? It is really irritating in a long post.

MrP

kylith · 11-02-2012 9:52pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I know it has been asked before, but why do your posts come out in this odd format? It is really irritating in a long post.

MrP

I've seen other people do it too. I think it's because they reach the end of a
line in the text box and think they have to hit 'return' like on a typewriter,
not realising that it will be formatted automatically.

robindch · 11-02-2012 11:14pm

Lucy8080 wrote: »

maybe now people here will start thinking on this issue....because u have highlighted that maybe guys here are not as ignorant as some of their replies are suggesting.

FYI: (a) there are girls posting on this thread too and (b) you'll appear a much more mature poster if you stop pretending you're the only person who really, really, really understands poverty.

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 12:29am

robin,
i get the feeling ur reaching now. u know that "guys" can be used to collectively include both male and female. thats my use of it. and ur brighter than that.

ur second point is reaching too. i hit a nerve here precisely because i knwo u guys understand...but refuse to understand on this issue.

thats why we are seeing self serving stories around here ...about how i budgeted...how we saved...

but families in exceptional circumstances cant do this.

can they?

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 12:48am

mr . p.

u say no one needs this payment.

u tell that to a mum or dad. ur neighbours who are not going to let their son or daughter down ...whether they need to beg ,steal or borrow.

u reckon up the social fall out...ask a parent how it feels to let their child down.

when ur taxes are going on issues of depression/alcholism/ suicide issues...or just people writing a letter of resignation from society and living under a bridge...

maybe u will join up the dots.

religion has u blinded....because its involved...u guys ( male and female)

are now exposing the prejudices and anger and need for blame that lies within.

and u are targeting the most vulnerable.

but hey ho,...keep justifying...because u could never do such a thing..

we are all right on here aint we?

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 1:00am

iguana,

what should we do to avoid the need for bernardos or volunteers like urself?

what happened / what/who was neglected....and in what ways ?

that meant guys like u were needed to deal with the fall out?

Dades · 12-02-2012 1:02am

Lucy,

Do us all a favour and stop arguing against poverty in general because nobody here wants people to be poor. We're talking about a specific payment here for a specific event. You trying to shift the focus from what the payment is actually related to is a bit disingenuous.

This thread is about what the payment is for more than who it is for.

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 1:13am

kylith,

another self serving post...and refusal to accept exceptional circumstances and irish catholism/irish cultural habits/ pride in children/ state reinfocement in the classroom...

this is a broader issue than religion.

its a family issue. and a social issue.

but an easy target.

and the message being sent out ....will rebound in ways that will cost the taxpayer and society a lot more than u think u can save .

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 1:20am

dades,

stop hiding.

u carry on with the purse strings. ive agreed to ur 26 euro dress.

what else is needed for a family of four in exceptional circumstances?

will u give the child some shoes?

im not shifting the focus...u guys want it on terms that let u off the hook.

as if u can separate this issue from other issues.

stop hiding. stop justifying. stop making excuses for urselves .

Ickle Magoo · 12-02-2012 1:56am

Does the child have no shoes? Then yes, state coffers should be available to ensure the child has footwear...that's surely not a matter of exceptional needs funds being spent frivolously?

It's patently obvious that a fund for exceptional needs should be spent on - exceptional needs - like shoeless children. What I object to is it being squandered, like on a knees up and unnecessary day out for a single religion in a multi-cultural society, all of whom are contributing to said coffers.

If parents cannot afford to clothe and dress their child then keeping up with the joneses in brand spanking new shiney patent shoes and new gown should be so far down their list of priorities that attempting to use funds for that should be disallowed on the grounds the parents clearly have no fathomable idea of how to prioritise.

I'm all for the state helping out people GENUINELY in need of that help, I work with many people who are on the bread-line - I don't agree with funding an upgrade in apparel for voluntary religious ceremonies any more than I think a fund for exceptional needs should replace an impoverished snooker players cue or an impoverished drivers car.

I'd be willing to bet without the personal vested interest in either that throwing money at religious ceremonies seems to drum up, such claims wouldn't be getting any support or claims that the howible atheists are just picking on the poor.

byhookorbycrook · 12-02-2012 2:03am

My communion dress was the one that did the rounds of the family. I got new socks and shoes, that was it.Ok, times have moved on,but take the likes of Barnados, who have NEW dresses for a fraction of the cost. In a lot of cases I have seen,the communion child is nearly an aside to the day as people go OTT with caterers,bouncy castles etc.

MagicMarker · 12-02-2012 2:16am

I've personally never spent over €100 on any item of clothing ever! Giving someone €200 to buy clothing for a person three times smaller than me is ludicrous.

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 2:22am

ickee and byhook,

please get beyond the dress.

think of the family here...and what may have changed from 2005 when the child was born to today.

im not moving from my position...but the more this thread evolves...i see that posters are coming towards my position.

as icke said...he recognises genuine need.

this is such a big day in irish social life....that it needs to be acknowledged as such.

some of u guys may be ten or twenty years ahead in the changes that are coming...

but lets do it softly...and with a bit of acknowledgement for where we came from ...and part state and religion amicably and cordially.and take in the family.

we have a make up in irish society than can accomodate irish catholics...catholic athiests ...and u get my drift...its an odd eclectic mix...where an athiest would have more in common with an irish catholic than an athiest from some other place.

step softly...and with a sense of generousity.

we dont need some revolution....granny can still say the rosary...and we will pretend we still go to mass just so she doesnt worry about us.

we are too small an island to ignore each others needs.

Ickle Magoo · 12-02-2012 2:31am

A) I'm not called ickee

I'm not a he

C) I'm no closer to coming to your position than I ever was.

I never had any issue with a fund for people who are experiencing exceptional needs. I don't consider birthday parties, wedding anniversaries, communion parties or any other frivolous and voluntary expense as being an exceptional need...and I think it's both insulting and stealing from those who do have a genuine need to suggest otherwise.

Lucy8080 · 12-02-2012 2:48am

sorry ickle.

im not sure why people are so easily offended these days.

maybe i have some stuff to learn too.

think ill take a break from here for a week.

Ickle Magoo · 12-02-2012 3:22am

Tis okay.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im not sure why people are so easily offended these days.

You mean at the very thought of a fund being only used for the purpose it was set up & named after? Indeed...

magicbastarder · 12-02-2012 3:30am

i'm still kinda bemused that people are arguing that this payment is *all* about paying for the dress. i know i'm probably coming back late to the argument - but at the risk of sounding like a stuck record; that given the irish government are still not just supporting, but forcing the position that first communion (and the attendant costs) is the default position - they can hardly turn around and say that the ancillary costs are purely down to other people (i.e. the parents) to absorb.

Galvasean · 12-02-2012 3:34am

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im not moving from my position...but the more this thread evolves...i see that posters are coming towards my position.

Just who the hell is coming around to your nonsensical position?

oh that's right, no one!!!!!!!!

Ickle Magoo · 12-02-2012 3:36am

I'm not sure why or how the government is forcing attendant costs on anyone?

Seems that those are something people take on themselves.

There are lots of aspects to life that have many more legal requirements than a communion that you have every right to celebrate in as low a key as you wish - I'm not sure why you feel this particular one is deserving of supplementary benefits to ensure the day goes with a swing?

sponsoredwalk · 12-02-2012 4:56am

Dades wrote: »

We're talking about a specific payment here for a specific event. You trying to shift the focus from what the payment is actually related to is a bit disingenuous.

This thread is about what the payment is for more than who it is for.

And we continue to entirely miss the point:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Notice how everybody just
implicitly assumes religion has anything to do with this issue. I know it'll
be tough, but if you think it through for 5 seconds beyond the neon
flashing lights shone by the word "communion" you'll notice how religion
has nothing to do with this, it's a fcuking social question we're dealing
with. If logic has anything to do with this question we can only claim
religion has anything to do with this issue if the state was funding
communion rituals for all participants involved. Whether you like it or not
that is a fact, which generalizes the question to one in which we question
all possible social issues and the funding of such, which itself implies some
shockingly obvious questions that are immediately obvious to anyone
not trying to use the coincidental relationship religion has with this issue
as a means to take from poorer sectors of society. These questions can
hardly be honestly addressed judging by the 7 pages of posts thus far
unless people bother to go beyond the surface. But that doesn't matter,
if religion is in any way, shape or form associated with something it's
implicitly bad (hence why it's posted in here).

The payment is for a religious event coincidentally, it's just a product of
our history that this is the case. It could easily be any other situation,
and in fact is sometimes (in the case of school books, uniforms), we
are basically talking about support for parents in dealing with things
forced onto them, like this religious event. It may very well be just
nonsense to me & you but it's still a fact of reality, whether we want
to brazenly deny it or not, that this is forced on parents & this money
is being offered to help them considering history has us landed in this
certain circumstance. This obvious fact explains why money isn't just
thrown at parents for christenings & confirmations etc... It's just a
historical accident.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does the child have no shoes? Then yes, state coffers should be available to ensure the child has footwear...that's surely not a matter of exceptional needs funds being spent frivolously?

But shoes are just a "luxury" :rolleyes: Similarly I think your logic means we
should be deducting the social welfare payments drastically because
all those 'professionals' are indulging in luxurious items like toilet paper.
I mean honestly, no shoes? Do you not see how your own argument
can easily be used against you to nullify it? You might consider shoes to
be an acceptable level at which we should throw money at people but I
mean other people don't think we should even be providing children with
shoes & god help you if a libertarian comes to power. At this level of
argument we're both right, jesus even the guy who wants to have sex
with those shoes is right... There's a reason such subjective opinions
shouldn't be offered in such a serious matter as this.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's patently obvious that a fund for exceptional needs should be spent on - exceptional needs - like shoeless children. What I object to is it being squandered, like on a knees up and unnecessary day out for a single religion in a multi-cultural society, all of whom are contributing to said coffers.

Going on about an unnecessary day is rich considering it's basically
mandatory for nearly every parent as things currently stand &
unbelievably childish attempts to just ignore this fact betray nothing
but a confirmation bias so riled up to make truth an irrelevancy. You
really want to take your problem up with the history books, I mean it's
not the parents fault that this communion nonsense has been
institutionalized & lay Catholics feel they're forced into it. I don't know
how people can ignore such obvious facts & continue on as if everybody
is an atheist viewing this as an optional thing, it really amounts to nothing
other than denial of history because your own worldview blinds you so
much you can't even begin to view the world from another's viewpoint.

And furthermore, this exceptional needs denial - I mean you can only
deny this is an exceptional needs issue if you view this as all being
optional (which just has to be fueled by a denial of reality fueled by
your own worldview, I just can't see how such nonsense could manifest
itself otherwise). Hopefully we can actually analyze the denial of this
being mandatory first which should make it clear why even the
government classes this as an exceptional needs payment. But in any
case even the spokesperson for St. Vincent De Paul, obviously biased because
of the religion I'm sure :rolleyes:, can tell you another reason why this is viewed as
an exceptional needs payment.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If parents cannot afford to clothe and dress their child then keeping up with the joneses in brand spanking new shiney patent shoes and new gown should be so far down their list of priorities that attempting to use funds for that should be disallowed on the grounds the parents clearly have no fathomable idea of how to prioritise.

Yes, and those mothers whoring themselves off deserve to be shot for
doing what they've done. I mean if you were emperor of Ireland and
could force your beliefs onto people then yes, you'd be right but - if
we're willing to enter the world of reality - your priorities just aren't
other people's priorities. Also your own argument can easily just be
used against you in that I can just as adamantly argue that your
priorities are the ones that are off & we can just go in circles...
Another verification of the fact that subjective opinions have no place
in as serious a discussion as this...

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm all for the state helping out people GENUINELY in need of that help, I work with many people who are on the bread-line - I don't agree with funding an upgrade in apparel for voluntary religious ceremonies any more than I think a fund for exceptional needs should replace an impoverished snooker players cue or an impoverished drivers car.

Again, claiming this is voluntary is unbelievable... Furthermore strawmen
about snooker players? Really? It's no wonder you'd pull up such a
ridiculous analogy if you're calling this a voluntary situation for parents.
I find it so shocking we're talking about taking money away from parents
in reality, this isn't hypothetical, and it's based on such illogical
preconceptions.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet without the personal vested interest in either that throwing money at religious ceremonies seems to drum up, such claims wouldn't be getting any support or claims that the howible atheists are just picking on the poor.

I'd love for you to mention where my vested interests lie on this matter
or how I'm claiming the howible atheists are stealing christmas.

Galvasean wrote: »

Just who the hell is coming around to your nonsensical position?
oh that's right, no one!!!!!!!!

When all else fails, just continue with the insults & downright refuse to
even bother to illuminate us on why such a position is nonsensical.
Thanks for the positive contribution. I wouldn't consider this comment
an insult if you'd bothered to even hint at why the opinion (s)he holds
is nonsensical, but I mean maybe it's just too obvious & undeserving of
a logical argument for mere mortals like me...

robindch · 12-02-2012 8:53am

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im not sure why people are so easily offended these days.

People are cheesed off at you because you're misrepresenting them. People don't like that.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

maybe i have some stuff to learn too.

Try posting using something other than txtspk.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

think ill take a break from here for a week.

The best of luck, enjoy your break and see you next week

deelite · 12-02-2012 9:11am

Would confirmation be applicable for this payment or is it just communion?

Children getting money from relations etc., where did that tradition come from - my cousin made hers in the UK and she didn't get a penny (that was a good few years ago)

sponsoredwalk · 12-02-2012 9:21am

robindch wrote: »

Try posting using something other than txtspk.

Is this meant to be nicer than the last insulting comment you deleted?
Also, deleting my posts to cover your tracks? As I said in my last post,
just, Wow...

While we're at it lets gang up on me for the way my posts are shaped,
see the seeds of that lynching have already been sown...

State spending €3million on communion rituals

Comments